Social surveys both reflect and shape beliefs about sexuality. Social norms construct the “authorized vocabulary” of surveys and the resulting data influence the research questions that can be answered and the policies likely to be inspired by study findings. Scholars have called for balancing attention to pleasure vs. danger and normative vs. non-normative practices in studies of sexuality as well as for collection of data on sexual desires, behaviors, and identities. We combine these calls into what we term the sexuality prism. To better understand how data about sexuality are typically collected and what research they facilitate or constrain, we analyze six decades of materials from four of the largest social surveys in the United States and five national surveys focused on sexuality, health, and family formation. We find that these surveys do not allow for investigations of the full sexuality prism. Instead, they tend to assume and narrowly investigate the “charmed circle” of sexuality: heterosexual, married, monogamous, and potentially procreative couplings. When surveys ask about non-normative practices, they do so primarily in the context of risk (e.g. sexually transmitted diseases) and ignore non-normative practices that are not deemed “risky.” The focus on risk likely explains the greater attention to sexual behaviors and the shortage of questions about sexual desires and identities. Moreover, most questions about sexual practices highlight the dangers of sex, rather than the pleasures. Not only does this severely limit the scope of U.S. sexuality research, it also means that, individually and collectively, these surveys reify “sex negativity.”

社会调查既反映并塑造了有关性的信念。社会规范构成了调查的“授权词汇”，由此产生的数据影响了可以回答的研究问题以及可能受到研究结果启发的政策。学者呼吁在性研究中平衡对享乐与危险，规范与非规范的关注，并收集有关性欲，行为和身份的数据。我们将这些呼唤结合在一起，我们称之为性棱镜。为了更好地了解通常如何收集有关性的数据以及它们促进或限制了哪些研究，我们分析了美国四项最大的社会调查和针对性，健康和家庭形成的五项全国性调查中六十年的资料。我们发现，这些调查无法对完整的性爱棱镜进行调查。取而代之的是，他们倾向于假设并狭investigate地研究性的“魅力圈”：异性恋，已婚，一夫一妻制以及可能繁殖的耦合。当调查询问非规范性实践时，它们主要是在风险（例如性传播疾病）的背景下这样做，而忽略了不被视为“风险”的非规范性实践。对风险的关注可能解释了对性行为的更多关注以及对性欲和身份问题的缺乏。而且，关于性行为的大多数问题都强调性的危险，而不是乐趣。这不仅严重限制了美国性研究的范围，也意味着这些调查单独或集体地证实了“性别否定性”。